Simple antitrust idea: Once your company has a net worth over X Billion, you can no longer purchase or merge with any other company. If you wish to enter a new market, you must build from the...
Simple antitrust idea:
Once your company has a net worth over X Billion, you can no longer purchase or merge with any other company.
If you wish to enter a new market, you must build from the ground up, licensing other patents (under non-exclusive terms), and compete with any other established players.
So no "IBM buys RedHat" or "Apple buys DarkSky." Or Amazon/Google/Microsoft buys anybody.
If Amazon wants that floorplan data, they should be forced to build their own floorvac robots and compete with iRobot instead of just buying their way to instant market leadership.
Pretty sure they already own Eufy don't they? Eufy has a robot vacuum. They could easily release a new version that includes mapping and does exactly what you say. I suppose that would take more...
Pretty sure they already own Eufy don't they? Eufy has a robot vacuum. They could easily release a new version that includes mapping and does exactly what you say.
The Eufy brand is owned by Anker Innovations. As far as I know they're unaffiliated with Amazon. That separation from the tech giants is actually why I bought both a robot vacuum and a baby...
The Eufy brand is owned by Anker Innovations. As far as I know they're unaffiliated with Amazon. That separation from the tech giants is actually why I bought both a robot vacuum and a baby monitor from Eufy. They offer wifi-connected IoT products (yuck) but I've been pretty pleased by both of my purchases, which were fully-offline models of pretty high quality. It's getting harder and harder to find that in both of these categories, so I've got fairly high regard for Eufy compared to other companies in those markets. Between all the unsecured "smart baby monitor" leaks and now Amazon getting all this mapping data, I'm feeling more vindicated that I stuck to my guns about this.
Yes, more time, money, and also something Eufy doesn't have. I think the core of the issue in acquisitions today is due to a target company's deep market reach and share combined with the power of...
Yes, more time, money, and also something Eufy doesn't have.
I think the core of the issue in acquisitions today is due to a target company's deep market reach and share combined with the power of the target company's first-mover market position. This combination in their market position is what the leviathans want to buy.
In a way, this unique market position is not something that someone can create with money and can rarely, if ever, be taken once possessed by a company. Exceptions exist (mostly when the companies are younger and establishing themselves) so for the sake of the argument, think Snapchat, Netflix and Twitter. (and time will tell about Meta with their metaverse)
Doing the former there is equivalent to the latter, it'd just take a bit longer. Amazon has enough money to strangle iRobot if they so wish, whether via buyouts or not.
they should be forced to build their own floorvac robots and compete with iRobot instead of just buying their way to instant market leadership.
Doing the former there is equivalent to the latter, it'd just take a bit longer. Amazon has enough money to strangle iRobot if they so wish, whether via buyouts or not.
Is it though? Being an up-and-comer, especially if your first few models have bad setbacks, you might as well be Microsoft with Zune. Amazon has shown they can't just buy their way into being a...
Is it though? Being an up-and-comer, especially if your first few models have bad setbacks, you might as well be Microsoft with Zune.
Amazon has shown they can't just buy their way into being a video game company, ditto for Google. It takes in-house expertise and that takes time and can tarnish your name as you build footing. Just because you've got money doesn't mean you can out compete established competition.
I think it's a matter of determination. I'd wager that while Amazon wanted to have a strong hold in games, they didn't want to spend too much. While it's unlikely they'd do so in other industries...
I think it's a matter of determination. I'd wager that while Amazon wanted to have a strong hold in games, they didn't want to spend too much. While it's unlikely they'd do so in other industries either, the point is moreso that if they really wanted a monopoly in an industry, they have enough money and influence to get one regardless of whether or not they can perform an out-right purchase of the leading company in that field; the problem wouldn't be solved, just made less likely to occur.
I mean, sure, Amazon and Google didn't stick around in games, but when they decided to enter they became a big player immediately just because they had the cash. If they'd decided to stay, I have no doubt they could've cemented themselves in a relatively short amount of time.
When a company develops a new product, there's social benefit. A new way of doing things, people paid to develop it, ancillary economic benefits, etc. By comparison, buying out a company doesn't...
When a company develops a new product, there's social benefit. A new way of doing things, people paid to develop it, ancillary economic benefits, etc. By comparison, buying out a company doesn't do any of that. Shareholders get richer, but the societal benefits are minimal. If a big company wants to compete, they should take the hard route of development that spreads the benefits around instead of the easy route of acquisition.
I think @vord is pointing to a much more powerful aspect of success than what money can do for success. Success certainly has a "je ne se quoi" aspect about itself that makes it hard to define,...
I think @vord is pointing to a much more powerful aspect of success than what money can do for success.
Success certainly has a "je ne se quoi" aspect about itself that makes it hard to define, but I believe it is multifaceted with some ephemeral components like timing or just pure luck of circumstances. And in fairness to your argument, money is paramount and immediately followed by, or maybe equal to, determination. But an established first-mover (or innovator with vision) in a market is one of those things that is more often than not the defining feature of the leader.
Money alone has historically been a poor primary reason for success. The saying of "stop throwing money at the problem" comes from that understanding. Again, determination is almost always part of the formula, but being well funded and determined can not get over the unbelievable inefficiency of brute force and the market entrenchment of first movers. This is why acquisitions have become the new answer to the "money is the solution" fallacy.
*I should note that there are of course exceptions to the "entrenched first mover" hurdle like Facebook over MySpace and Gmail over Hotmail, but my point is that money and determined brute force alone are rarely the leading components of success. The two examples for instance achieved dominance through initial exclusivity similar to Tildes
Here's an example of a failed "money solution" approach.
Apple dominated after 1984 through development of a novel first to market innovation we all know about already.
IBM then responded in 1986 with a counter innovation and first to market product of their own.
IBM finally realized their problem in 1991 and tried diversifying and repositioning (pivoting) their brand as "The Other IBM" Full Version
You buy Roomba. Roomba maps your entire house. Amazon buys iRobot. Amazon has map of your house with a robot that follows you around listening to everything you say. Your partner mentions...
You buy Roomba.
Roomba maps your entire house.
Amazon buys iRobot.
Amazon has map of your house with a robot that follows you around listening to everything you say.
Your partner mentions pregnancy.
You get notifications for deals on cribs that'll fit in your home-office-cum-nursery, a playpen the same size as your coffee table, a four person dining room table to replace your two person table it knows you have, cargo covers for the SUV you haven't bought yet but are considering since you'll want something that makes you feel safer now that you have a kid on the way, and on and on...
Despite having lots of advantages, Amazon isn't that smart in practice. Recommendations are pretty bad and they can't even weed out the junk on their site. Also, supposedly, floor plans are...
Despite having lots of advantages, Amazon isn't that smart in practice. Recommendations are pretty bad and they can't even weed out the junk on their site.
Also, supposedly, floor plans are available via public records, although I was unable to get usable results for our house. (Zillow has lots of facts but no floor plan. County website has nearly unusable search.) But in a housing development, it wouldn't be hard to guess from a floor plan of a house that's actually for sale.
How bad a security risk is having a guessable floor plan, anyway? It's not something I worry much about.
OTOH, I sold my home with Redfin, and they were able to take a 3d camera through my house for a virtual walkthrough, also taking dimensions and spitting out a full interior rendering of my home,...
OTOH, I sold my home with Redfin, and they were able to take a 3d camera through my house for a virtual walkthrough, also taking dimensions and spitting out a full interior rendering of my home, complete with floorplans.
The vaccum potentially has a lot more data than just raw floor plan tho. Can probably figure out hardwood or carpet. Market targetted cleaners based on surface area.
Has to divert from learned path often? Pets or kids.
A giant change in floorplan? Furniture replaced.
You can see the amount of unused square footage, so can weed out things from displaying that wouldn't fit.
All of this is in service of encouraging the customer to click 'buy' instead of walking away.
You're still thinking like a human though, not a pile of ML code. They (Amazon) don't have to have any particular sales goal in mind at all aside from just generally sell more stuff. They just...
They (Amazon) don't have to have any particular sales goal in mind at all aside from just generally sell more stuff. They just want more data. If they match the data the iRobot gathers with all the other online data Amazon can acquire for profile #2394782912, they can start pulling correlations and running A/B experiments on how those correlations can help them make suggestions that boost sales. And that's how you end up suggesting baby supplies to teens despite not having actually intended to do that.
I get what your saying, but I'm giving some of the tangible results from said data. The ML won't see it that way, but the humans the ML code is selling paperclips to might.
I get what your saying, but I'm giving some of the tangible results from said data.
The ML won't see it that way, but the humans the ML code is selling paperclips to might.
Like you wouldn't believe. Of course, the data seems to back that up as the larger the vehicle the higher likelihood that the occupants in that vehicle are to survive what would be an otherwise...
So it becomes a vehicular arms race as people buy ever larger SUVs because it makes them feel safer to not be the smaller opponent in a battle between several tons of metal. It's pretty easy to feel safe when you're in a tank and everyone else is in go-karts.
For sure. One aspect of it is how it changes the feeling of speed and control - it's the opposite of sporty supercars, essentially. There, by having the body of the car lower to the ground,...
For sure. One aspect of it is how it changes the feeling of speed and control - it's the opposite of sporty supercars, essentially. There, by having the body of the car lower to the ground, everything feels faster (the go-cart effect). On the other hand, in the raised body of an SUV, the same speed feels slower. That gives a greater illusion of control - the "slower", the safer, after all.
Another is the nature of car accidents and the psychology in them. The vast majority of car accidents people end up with are low speed, non-fatal ones in heavily trafficked urban or suburban roads. But take a common accident - a rear end. If you're in a sedan, and you get rear-ended, more than likely you will be perfectly safe - but it will feel scary, and the crumple zones may have to do what their intended to do - crumple.
When you get out of your car and see your destroyed trunk, it's psychologically damaging - it's quite possible you feel much closer to death than you really are, thanks to modern engineering.
On the other hand, at those speeds, with those collisions, you probably just scuffed the plastic cladding on your tank. And if you're the one rear-ending the sedan, you better believe the sedan is in worse shape.
In both instances, the low speed collision ends up with no bodily harm, but despite that, being in the tank feels better. No amount of roll over statistics will change that.
As a personal anecdote, some family members recently had exactly that type of accident - they rear ended another car in a sedan. They were unharmed, but the sedan was totaled. They quite promptly bought an SUV - my dark joke is that next time, they want to win.
I have a a lot of opinions on this, namely that I think this is a truly tremendous bad idea for the worlds most successful and well known consumer robotics company, but I will not go into...
I have a a lot of opinions on this, namely that I think this is a truly tremendous bad idea for the worlds most successful and well known consumer robotics company, but I will not go into specifics due to my very loose connection with the founding team.
Simple antitrust idea:
Once your company has a net worth over X Billion, you can no longer purchase or merge with any other company.
If you wish to enter a new market, you must build from the ground up, licensing other patents (under non-exclusive terms), and compete with any other established players.
So no "IBM buys RedHat" or "Apple buys DarkSky." Or Amazon/Google/Microsoft buys anybody.
If Amazon wants that floorplan data, they should be forced to build their own floorvac robots and compete with iRobot instead of just buying their way to instant market leadership.
Pretty sure they already own Eufy don't they? Eufy has a robot vacuum. They could easily release a new version that includes mapping and does exactly what you say.
I suppose that would take more time though.
The Eufy brand is owned by Anker Innovations. As far as I know they're unaffiliated with Amazon. That separation from the tech giants is actually why I bought both a robot vacuum and a baby monitor from Eufy. They offer wifi-connected IoT products (yuck) but I've been pretty pleased by both of my purchases, which were fully-offline models of pretty high quality. It's getting harder and harder to find that in both of these categories, so I've got fairly high regard for Eufy compared to other companies in those markets. Between all the unsecured "smart baby monitor" leaks and now Amazon getting all this mapping data, I'm feeling more vindicated that I stuck to my guns about this.
Yes, more time, money, and also something Eufy doesn't have.
I think the core of the issue in acquisitions today is due to a target company's deep market reach and share combined with the power of the target company's first-mover market position. This combination in their market position is what the leviathans want to buy.
In a way, this unique market position is not something that someone can create with money and can rarely, if ever, be taken once possessed by a company. Exceptions exist (mostly when the companies are younger and establishing themselves) so for the sake of the argument, think Snapchat, Netflix and Twitter. (and time will tell about Meta with their metaverse)
Doing the former there is equivalent to the latter, it'd just take a bit longer. Amazon has enough money to strangle iRobot if they so wish, whether via buyouts or not.
Is it though? Being an up-and-comer, especially if your first few models have bad setbacks, you might as well be Microsoft with Zune.
Amazon has shown they can't just buy their way into being a video game company, ditto for Google. It takes in-house expertise and that takes time and can tarnish your name as you build footing. Just because you've got money doesn't mean you can out compete established competition.
I think it's a matter of determination. I'd wager that while Amazon wanted to have a strong hold in games, they didn't want to spend too much. While it's unlikely they'd do so in other industries either, the point is moreso that if they really wanted a monopoly in an industry, they have enough money and influence to get one regardless of whether or not they can perform an out-right purchase of the leading company in that field; the problem wouldn't be solved, just made less likely to occur.
I mean, sure, Amazon and Google didn't stick around in games, but when they decided to enter they became a big player immediately just because they had the cash. If they'd decided to stay, I have no doubt they could've cemented themselves in a relatively short amount of time.
When a company develops a new product, there's social benefit. A new way of doing things, people paid to develop it, ancillary economic benefits, etc. By comparison, buying out a company doesn't do any of that. Shareholders get richer, but the societal benefits are minimal. If a big company wants to compete, they should take the hard route of development that spreads the benefits around instead of the easy route of acquisition.
I think @vord is pointing to a much more powerful aspect of success than what money can do for success.
Success certainly has a "je ne se quoi" aspect about itself that makes it hard to define, but I believe it is multifaceted with some ephemeral components like timing or just pure luck of circumstances. And in fairness to your argument, money is paramount and immediately followed by, or maybe equal to, determination. But an established first-mover (or innovator with vision) in a market is one of those things that is more often than not the defining feature of the leader.
Money alone has historically been a poor primary reason for success. The saying of "stop throwing money at the problem" comes from that understanding. Again, determination is almost always part of the formula, but being well funded and determined can not get over the unbelievable inefficiency of brute force and the market entrenchment of first movers. This is why acquisitions have become the new answer to the "money is the solution" fallacy.
*I should note that there are of course exceptions to the "entrenched first mover" hurdle like Facebook over MySpace and Gmail over Hotmail, but my point is that money and determined brute force alone are rarely the leading components of success. The two examples for instance achieved dominance through initial exclusivity similar to Tildes
Here's an example of a failed "money solution" approach.
Apple dominated after 1984 through development of a novel first to market innovation we all know about already.
IBM then responded in 1986 with a counter innovation and first to market product of their own.
IBM finally realized their problem in 1991 and tried diversifying and repositioning (pivoting) their brand as "The Other IBM" Full Version
Despite having lots of advantages, Amazon isn't that smart in practice. Recommendations are pretty bad and they can't even weed out the junk on their site.
Also, supposedly, floor plans are available via public records, although I was unable to get usable results for our house. (Zillow has lots of facts but no floor plan. County website has nearly unusable search.) But in a housing development, it wouldn't be hard to guess from a floor plan of a house that's actually for sale.
How bad a security risk is having a guessable floor plan, anyway? It's not something I worry much about.
OTOH, I sold my home with Redfin, and they were able to take a 3d camera through my house for a virtual walkthrough, also taking dimensions and spitting out a full interior rendering of my home, complete with floorplans.
The vaccum potentially has a lot more data than just raw floor plan tho. Can probably figure out hardwood or carpet. Market targetted cleaners based on surface area.
Has to divert from learned path often? Pets or kids.
A giant change in floorplan? Furniture replaced.
You can see the amount of unused square footage, so can weed out things from displaying that wouldn't fit.
All of this is in service of encouraging the customer to click 'buy' instead of walking away.
You're still thinking like a human though, not a pile of ML code.
They (Amazon) don't have to have any particular sales goal in mind at all aside from just generally sell more stuff. They just want more data. If they match the data the iRobot gathers with all the other online data Amazon can acquire for profile #2394782912, they can start pulling correlations and running A/B experiments on how those correlations can help them make suggestions that boost sales. And that's how you end up suggesting baby supplies to teens despite not having actually intended to do that.
I get what your saying, but I'm giving some of the tangible results from said data.
The ML won't see it that way, but the humans the ML code is selling paperclips to might.
Do people really feel safer in SUVs?
Like you wouldn't believe.
Of course, the data seems to back that up as the larger the vehicle the higher likelihood that the occupants in that vehicle are to survive what would be an otherwise fatal crash.
However...
The data also shows that the larger the vehicle the more likely a non-fatal crash will turn into a fatal one, just not for the SUV driver.
So it becomes a vehicular arms race as people buy ever larger SUVs because it makes them feel safer to not be the smaller opponent in a battle between several tons of metal. It's pretty easy to feel safe when you're in a tank and everyone else is in go-karts.
For sure. One aspect of it is how it changes the feeling of speed and control - it's the opposite of sporty supercars, essentially. There, by having the body of the car lower to the ground, everything feels faster (the go-cart effect). On the other hand, in the raised body of an SUV, the same speed feels slower. That gives a greater illusion of control - the "slower", the safer, after all.
Another is the nature of car accidents and the psychology in them. The vast majority of car accidents people end up with are low speed, non-fatal ones in heavily trafficked urban or suburban roads. But take a common accident - a rear end. If you're in a sedan, and you get rear-ended, more than likely you will be perfectly safe - but it will feel scary, and the crumple zones may have to do what their intended to do - crumple.
When you get out of your car and see your destroyed trunk, it's psychologically damaging - it's quite possible you feel much closer to death than you really are, thanks to modern engineering.
On the other hand, at those speeds, with those collisions, you probably just scuffed the plastic cladding on your tank. And if you're the one rear-ending the sedan, you better believe the sedan is in worse shape.
In both instances, the low speed collision ends up with no bodily harm, but despite that, being in the tank feels better. No amount of roll over statistics will change that.
As a personal anecdote, some family members recently had exactly that type of accident - they rear ended another car in a sedan. They were unharmed, but the sedan was totaled. They quite promptly bought an SUV - my dark joke is that next time, they want to win.
I have a a lot of opinions on this, namely that I think this is a truly tremendous bad idea for the worlds most successful and well known consumer robotics company, but I will not go into specifics due to my very loose connection with the founding team.